Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 304 (392546)
04-01-2007 9:06 AM


In another thread, ICANT wrote the following:
quote:
I do not see how anyone can believe in the Theory of of evolution.
My reply was:
1) As crash writes, people who accept the overwhelming evidence in favor of the ToE do just that. "Belief", like "belief" in gods, is not why people who understand a bit of Biology accept the ToE.
2) Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false?
It seems to me that many religious people who oppose the ToE are under the impression that others, including scientists and science-minded people, "believe" in the same way that religious people "believe" in gods.
I also have noticed that when religious people make such a claim, they do not realize that they are calling into question the integrity, intelligence, and basic professional competence of generations of scientists.
I would like those who reject the ToE to explain how they reconcile their rejection with the logical implications regarding scientists I have listed above.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 04-01-2007 6:52 PM nator has not replied
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 04-01-2007 9:24 PM nator has not replied
 Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 04-01-2007 9:28 PM nator has not replied
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2007 10:49 PM nator has not replied
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 04-02-2007 9:16 PM nator has replied
 Message 130 by Q, posted 09-06-2007 7:25 PM nator has replied
 Message 269 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 6:02 AM nator has not replied
 Message 288 by AreWeNotMen?, posted 12-13-2007 12:13 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 304 (393010)
04-03-2007 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
04-02-2007 9:16 PM


Re: Re-ToE
quote:
Before I answer I need to know what your definition of the Theory of Evolution is.
The short versions:
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.
Put another way, it is descent with modification.
The slightly longer, somewhat more comprehensive version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
The long, quite detailed and very comprehensive version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
While I am happy to provide you with this information, ICANT, I am not sure why it is relevant to the questions in the OP.
If you rejected the Germ Theory of Disease and couldn't understand how anybody could believe in it, would the definition of the GToD really matter to a discussion of the competency of all of the scientists and medical doctors who have been working within the GToD for the last 150 years or so?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : plelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 04-02-2007 9:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 04-03-2007 8:33 AM nator has replied
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 04-03-2007 11:33 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 304 (393013)
04-03-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wounded King
04-03-2007 8:33 AM


Re: Re-ToE
crap

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 04-03-2007 8:33 AM Wounded King has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 304 (393199)
04-03-2007 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
04-03-2007 11:33 AM


Re: Re-ToE
quote:
When I talk about the Theory of Evolution I begin with nothing. If you start somewhere else we have a problem.
Well then your difficulty is with Biochemistry, not Evolutionary Biology.
The ToE applies to the first life once it got here. The various therories of Abiogenesis (which is Chemistry) deal with the formation of the first life from non-life.
So, you are very much in error to lump Abiogenesis theories into the ToE.
quote:
If you start after life is found on the earth then you have to take everything before the point you begin by FAITH so then your ToE would be faith based not on fact.
That's crap, as others have explained to you.
Where the first life came from has no bearing on the ToE at all.
God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota.
quote:
If I believe in evolution and so stated in the next sentence, why the above accusation.
Because you misunderstand how science in general works and in particular what Evolutionary Biology is.
quote:
I believe that things change over time.
It is a proven fact that formas over a period of at least 66 million years produced at least 330 different species of formas. But as of today they are still formas.
What are "formas"? That's not a taxonomical term, so I don't understand what you mean.
quote:
So I do not believe that it can be proven that any one kind can become another kind. In fact the formas proved it does not happen.
What is the definition of "kind"? In specific, by what method is it determined that "kind" an organism is?
For example, is my housecat and a Bengal Tiger the same "kind"?
Are homo Sapiens and Bonobo Chimpanzees the same "kind"?
quote:
I know what I believe and why, you know what you believe and why. And they will never agree so lets leave it at that.
You believe what you do about science out of ignorance.
It's a shame that you wish to remain ignorant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 04-03-2007 11:33 AM ICANT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 304 (393299)
04-04-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
04-04-2007 12:05 AM


Re: Re-ToE
Where the first life came from has no bearing on the ToE at all.
quote:
It does if life did not evolve from nothing.
No, you are completely wrong.
Do you disbelieve the Germ Theory of Disease because it doesn't explain where the first bacteria came from?
Do you disbelieve the Atomic Theory of Matter because it doesn't explain where the first atom came from?
Do you disbelieve the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System because it doesn't explain how stars are formed?
ICANT, you don't know nearly enough about science to make an informed opinion.
Therefore, you are making error upon error about very basic scientific things. You have an opinion, but it is based upon nothing but your religious prejudice and ignorance.
God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota.
quote:
It would if God made a full grown man and woman, full grown animals, birds and fishes.
If you believe that this happened, then you don't accept modern science.
You reject Biology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Cosmology, Genetics, etc.
Your links concerning "formas" didn't work.
The bit of a quote you provided mentions "forams", which are single-celled organisms. Their fossils are used to date geological layers.
But anyway, this is just another empty argument about supposed barriers to evolution that people like you claim exist but never show.
I noticed that you ignored my request for a definition of "kind".
What is the definition of "kind", ICANT? What is it?
I've asked that question to dozens of Creationists over the years, and not a single one of them have given me an answer.
Maybe you will be the first, but I don't think so.
Furthermore, when I asked you to explain the method used to determine what "kind" an organism is...:
For example, is my housecat and a Bengal Tiger the same "kind"?
Are homo Sapiens and Bonobo Chimpanzees the same "kind"?
You inadequately answered:
quote:
Yes
No
How did you come to that conclusion? What method did you use?
Clearly, you reject the notion that genes are the basis for heredity.
Again, more evidence that you reject modern science.
quote:
I plead guilty to ignorance of science.
If I wanted to remain that way I would not put up with the snide posts, uncalled for sarcasm, and downright bigotry on this forum.
[rant]If you agree that you are ignorant of science, then where do you get off making such bold claims about it?
For the last 150 years, there have been hundreds of thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of life on this planet. There's a reason not every Joe Schmoe can get a PhD in the sciences, ICANT. That's because it's bloody difficult. It takes enormous commitment and not a small amount of intelligence to make it through the years and years of work required. Scientists are low-paid relative to other professionals with similar levels of education and expertise like MD's, MBA's and attorneys, so none of them do it for the big bucks but because they like what they do.
Can't you imagine how you might come off as insulting when, even while admitting ignorance about science, you express incredulity about how anybody (which includes scientists in the field) could possibly believe the Theory of Evolution?
Don't cry to me about sarcasm and snide remarks regarding your entirely willful ignorance if you are also going to criticise others who are far more informed than you are. THAT, my friend, is real arrogance.[/rant]
If you are ignorant of science, then why haven't you been asking questions so you can become less ignorant? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to try to learn what you don't know rather than defend your ignorance? There are professional scientists and educated laypeople on this board who could help you to correct your misconceptions and errors and lack of information regarding any number of scientific subjects. Just ask, and many of us would be happy to explain anything you have questions about.
But I predict that you won't. It's too dangerous for your faith, apparently, for you to become too educated about science.
You have to realize, ICANT, that we've seen many people just like you come and go from these boards. They have the same wrong ideas about science and evolution, and come with the same arrogant attitude of, "Gee, I don't know anything about Biology, and I don't believe in the ToE, and anybody who does believe in it must be pretty crazy!" We've even seen some who come here with lots of honest questions about science becasue they realize thay are ignorant and want to fix that. Most of the time, they get almost to the point of understanding but then run away right when they would have to admit that the ToE is valid.
It is truly a trajedy when people must suppress their intellects and avoid learning about the natural world to protect their clearly fragile faith.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 04-04-2007 12:05 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-10-2007 3:03 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 304 (393310)
04-04-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by StevieBoy
04-04-2007 10:23 AM


Re: Re-ToE
I know I am not good as staying on topic but I am motivated to keep this one from straying.
StevieBoy, thanks for your reply, but it doesn't address the OP.
I'd like to know your thoughts on the OP, so please give it a read and let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by StevieBoy, posted 04-04-2007 10:23 AM StevieBoy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 304 (393448)
04-05-2007 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
04-05-2007 1:18 AM


Re: Re-Questions
Are you going to define "kind", or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 1:18 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Parasomnium, posted 04-05-2007 8:50 AM nator has not replied
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 10:05 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 304 (393658)
04-06-2007 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
04-05-2007 10:05 AM


Re: Re-Questions
Are you going to define "kind", or not?
quote:
You already told me I was not qualified to define kind or anything else that would be involved in science.
I was going to suggest that we take this discussion of "kind" to another thread, but it would be a waste of bandwidth. I'll put this to rest right now.
"Kind" is not a scientific term. It is one that is used only by Creationists.
If there actually was a definition, you would have provided it by now. There is no definion.
If there actually was a method that any believer or non-believer could use to determine one "kind" from another, you would have been able to explain it to me. There isn't.
It is a sad little attempt by Creationists to make the bible into a science text. They tried to mimic scientific taxonomy and, as you can see, fail miserably. You have been lied to, my friend.
quote:
All of these questions pretain to why I don't see how anyone can believe in the ToE.
I'm going to ask this as plainly as I can.
Do you think that people with PhD's in Biology are stupid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 10:05 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Taz, posted 04-06-2007 11:33 AM nator has not replied
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 12:48 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 304 (394056)
04-09-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
04-05-2007 10:11 AM


bump for ICANT
Just trying to keep this thread near the top of the list as we await ICANT's return.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 10:11 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 04-09-2007 11:56 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 304 (394176)
04-09-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nator
04-09-2007 1:09 PM


Re: bump for ICANT
sending it up there again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 04-09-2007 1:09 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 304 (394202)
04-10-2007 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by One_Charred_Wing
04-10-2007 3:03 AM


Re: Re-ToE
Oh, no, I meant "criticize".
And, FYI, I do hope you aren't planning on following me around the board to correct my spelling, as you won't have time for anything else.
Welcome back, Born2.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-10-2007 3:03 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-10-2007 3:44 PM nator has not replied
 Message 41 by nator, posted 04-10-2007 10:45 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 304 (394386)
04-10-2007 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
04-10-2007 7:47 AM


another bump for ICANT
bump de bump
do the bump de bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 04-10-2007 7:47 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 04-17-2007 10:08 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 304 (395792)
04-17-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
04-10-2007 10:45 PM


Re: another bump for ICANT
'nutha BUMP!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 04-10-2007 10:45 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 304 (400168)
05-10-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 2:58 PM


Re: Re-ToE
Clearly, if you don't know enough about ToE to believe in it, you can't possible believe in something as out there as gravity.
quote:
My point is, that I wouldn't compare the two.
Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 2:58 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 72 of 304 (400170)
05-10-2007 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
05-10-2007 1:20 PM


Re: The ToE
quote:
I believe that it is a theory but not the only theory.
I believe in the theory that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, as I have stated in other threads.
So, what predictions of your theory, if found, would falsify it?
Does it explain ALL the evidence found in nature better than any other theory?
These are a couple of hallmarks of a scientific theory.
The layman's use of the word "theory" is not at all like the way scientists use the word.
Some scientific theories you might recognize:
The Germ Theory of Disease
The Atomic Theory of Matter
The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System
Gravitational Theory
The Theory of Relativity
Evolutionary Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 1:20 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024